Case Digest (G.R. No. 4347)
Facts:
Jose Rogers brought an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover the amount due under a written instrument dated February 17, 1876, issued by Smith, Bell & Co. for a sum of 12,000 pesos, with 8% interest per annum, payable after six months and subject to later payments of interest every three months. The trial court held that Rogers was entitled to recover only 12,000 pesos, not 24,000 pesos, and ordered the defendants to deposit that amount in court; Rogers appealed.Rogers had delivered the 12,000 pesos in gold coin in 1876, while the defendants later remitted interest in silver, which Rogers accepted without protest until February 10, 1904, when he invoked the act of Congress of March 2, 1903 introducing the gold standard and claimed entitlement to payment in gold (i.e., 24,000 pesos in silver).
Issues:
- Whether the 1876 instrument created a deposit (including an irregular deposit) or an ordinary loan producing only the debtor-creditor relation.
- Whether, under Section 3 of the act of Congress of March 2, 1903 establishing a standard of value and coinage system in the Philippines, Rogers could demand payment in gold rather than in Philippine pesos legal tender for debts contracted prior to December 31, 1903.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 4347)
Facts:
On February seventeenth, eighteen hundred and seventy-six, Jose Rogers (plaintiff and appellant) delivered to Smith, Bell & Co. (defendants and appellees) a written instrument dated in Manila, which stated: “The sum of pesos twelve thousand has been deposited with us, received from Mr. Jose Rogers, which sum we will pay on the last day of the six months after the presentation of this document, to the order of Mr. Jose Rogers,” and further provided that the sum “shall bear interest at the rate of eight per centum (8%) per annum from this date, February 17, 1876.” Upon delivery of the instrument, Smith, Bell & Co. also gave Rogers a letter addressed to him, stating that the firm had signed a receipt (quedan No. 1418) for twelve thousand dollars deposited in its hands at eight per cent interest, with interest payable to Rogers’s order every three months, either in Manila or in London, and that if Rogers wished to receive the deposit in London, payment would be made by Messrs. Smith, Wood & Co. there after two months’ notice and on presentation of the quedan. The parties treated the transaction as one where, when the document was delivered, twelve thousand pesos in silver were worth more than twelve thousand pesos in gold, while Rogers, in consideration for the execution of the document, delivered twelve thousand pesos in gold. Rogers subsequently removed to Barcelona and resided there. Smith, Bell & Co. remitted interest to Rogers every three months at eight per cent per annum until January thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, when it notified him that the interest would thereafter be reduced to six per cent; Rogers accepted the reduction, and interest was thereafter remitted until February tenth, nineteen hundred and four. During this period, the interest payments were remitted in silver; every three months, Smith, Bell & Co. took one hundred eighty pesos in silver, bought exchange on Barcelona or another European point, and converted it into pesetas, which Rogers received in silver without protest. On February tenth, nineteen hundred and four, Rogers wrote to call attention to the fact that, under the “new American law in force in the Philippines,” the gold standard had been introduced and that, because he had delivered money in gold coin in 1876, he was entitled to receive his interest in gold. In a letter dated December fifteenth, nineteen hundred and four, he expressly referred to the act of Congress of March 2, 1903 and subsequent proclamations relating to coinage. The issue before the court below was whether, upon these documents, Rogers was entitled to recover twelve thousand pesos or twenty-four thousand pesos. The court below ruled that he was entitled to recover only twelve thousand pesos, and, after the defendants deposited that amount in court, judgment was rendered for the defendants; Rogers appealed.Issues:
Whether Rogers, having delivered twelve thousand pesos in gold in 1876 under the parties’ documents, was entitled under the act of Congress of March 2, 1903 to recover twelve thousand pesos or twenty-four thousand pesos (the latter representing payment in gold equivalent to the silver value).Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 4347)
Facts:
- Nature of the action and documents relied upon
- The plaintiff brought an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on the basis of a written instrument dated February 17, 1876.
- The instrument stated in substance that SMITH, BELL & Co. received from Mr. Jose Rogers a sum of pesos twelve thousand, that it would be paid on the last day of the six months after presentation of the document, and that it would be to the order of Mr. Jose Rogers.
- The instrument further provided that the sum of twelve thousand pesos shall bear interest at the rate of eight per centum (8%) per annum from February 17, 1876, and it was signed by SMITH, BELL & Co.
- Upon delivery of the instrument to the plaintiff, the defendants delivered a letter also dated February 17, 1876 addressed to JOSE ROGERS, ESQ., Present, explaining the signing of a receipt (quedan No. 1418) for twelve thousand dollars deposited with the defendants, at interest of 8% per annum commencing from that day.
- The letter stated that the interest would be paid every three months, either in Manila or in London, as the plaintiff might wish.
- The letter further stated that if at any time the plaintiff desired to receive said deposit of twelve thousand dollars in London, the defendants would pay it to him (or his order) by Messrs. Smith, Wood & Co. after two months’ notice and upon presentation of said receipt (quedan No. 1418).
- Trial court posture and the sole controversy on amount recoverable
- The only question was whether, upon these documents, the plaintiff was entitled to recover 12,000 pesos or 24,000 pesos.
- The Court of First Instance held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only 12,000 pesos.
- The defendants deposited the amount in court, and judgment was ordered in their favor.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment.
- Undisputed circumstances surrounding payment in gold and silver and subsequent interest remittances
- At the time the instrument was delivered, 12,000 pesos in silver were worth more than 12,000 pesos in gold.
- The plaintiff delivered to the defendants, in consideration of the execution of the document, 12,000 pesos in gold.
- Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff removed to Barcelona and resided there.
- The defendants remitted interest every three months at the rate of 8% per annum until January 30, 1888, when they notified the plaintiff that thereafter the interest would be 6%.
- The plaintiff accepted the reduction, and the defendants remitted interest at 6% per annum until February 10, 1904.
- These interest remittances were made in silver.
- Specifically, every three months the defendants took 180 pesos in silver and with it bought exchange on Barcelona (or other European point) converted into pesetas.
- The plaintiff received these silver payments without protest for the period until February 10, 1904.
- Plaintiff’s protests and their basis
- On February 10, 1904, the plaintiff, in a letter of that date, called attention to the fact that by a “new American law in force in the Philippines” the gold standard had been introduced.
- The plaintiff claimed that because...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Classification of the contract under pre-Civil Code law
- Whether the February 17, 1876 document evidenced an ordinary loan creating the relation of debtor and creditor.
- Whether the instrument could instead be treated as an “irregular deposit” under the definition invoked by the plaintiff from Law II, Title III of the Fifth Partida.
- Whether the contract’s terms prevented characterization as an irregular deposit because of the required requisites identified in the Court’s discussion of Manresa’s Commentaries.
- Effect of the coinage law on the form of payment
- Whether Section 3 of the act of Congress of March 2, 1903 governed payment of the private debt arising from the contract.
- Whether the proviso in Section 3 giving coverage to debts contracted prior to December 31, 1903 meant that the debtor (and not the creditor) had the option regarding the kind of currency to discharge the debt, in the absence of a contrary express contract provision.
- Whether the plaintiff’s argument that the act could not validly apply to p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)